- Joined
- Sep 27, 2021
- Messages
- 1,583
- Reaction score
- 331
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.
Except science isn't agreeing with it anymore. There are too many holes in this nonsense. Just because someone draws a map, puts it in a publication, doesn't make it true. I gave you actually data of formations that don't take long periods of time. All this nonsense is people who have a religious-type ideology of old earth-universe forcing timelines that are now known by scientists to be wrong. I have lots of drawings that show the formation very young.View attachment 67370600
Too late. Science already understands how many millions of years were involved in the creation of the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon.
This is bullshit. Conversely, ALL of your links come from what actually IS a religious-type ideology of "new Earth" universe. Perhaps that's why you buy the lie.All this nonsense is people who have a religious-type ideology of old earth-universe forcing timelines that are now known by scientists to be wrong.
Are you suggesting God did something?There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.
"Let me introduce you to Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. It measures 1500 feet long, up to 120 feet deep, and 120 feet wide, winding through a hillside. A small-scale analogy to Grand Canyon it was observed to form in less than six days."How Long Does It Take for a Canyon to Form?
ICR has long had a deep interest in magnificent Grand Canyon. This awesome wonder of the natural world, we believe, bears eloquent testimony to the great flood of Noah's day. Visitors to Grand Canyon as well as eighth grade earth science students have been traditionally taught that the...www.icr.org
"Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago."
"Flowers may be convinced that her new results are reliable, but other experts are not. State University of New York geologist Richard Young told Science NOW that despite this new study, "there's a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon."5 And California Institute of Technology geologist Brian Wernicke said, "It's hard to look at a landscape and discern its erosional history."Age of Grand Canyon Remains a Mystery
How would a scientist estimate the time when a canyon formed? Various techniques and different interpretations of those techniques have yielded a wide range of estimated dates for the formation of Arizona's Grand Canyon. But results from a new technique are again challenging the canyon's...www.icr.org
You really are clueless. You haven't a clue out there about the fact scientists are not all in on the Big Bang or old earth as well. They want to be so they can be included in the social events of the year. But, many see the problems that their models just aren't answering. When you read young earth scientist's literature, what they always say is that young earth better fits the science gathered from old earth scientists. They never say that Old earth interpretations are wrong and that they are stupid. But, that's what oyu hear from the old earth interpreters of science data. That's because you guys are all so insecure about your conclusions you have to shout down anyone that disagrees. Then, you have to make conclusions that all scientists agree with you which is a lie. When you are challenged, you then have to shout out vulgar verbiage at the top of your lungs to be heard or to try and drown out those you disagree with. Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.This is bullshit. Conversely, ALL of your links come from what actually IS a religious-type ideology of "new Earth" universe. Perhaps that's why you buy the lie.
The mechanics of earth and planetary science are fairly well known, and literally dozens of unrelated sciences, quite curiously, all confirm each other's findings in their conclusions about of the age of the Earth. And, as if all that wasn't enough, physics and astrophysics, are the lullaby and sandman that finally puts that feeble revisionist "new earth" pseudo-science to sleep, once and for all.
The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one. And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood. You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.Are you suggesting God did something?
No people, of any intelligence level, should hesitate to condemn religious pseudoscience.Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
In fact it was a fault in the earth crust. The land rose and the sediments on the walls are clearly evident.The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one.
No he didn't. There is no God and never has been. Every meteorological event that ever happened did so without divine help. If there was this flood that supposed to have covered the earth, where did all the water go since? Keep in mind the depth it would have been to cover Everest. Your silly story makes no sense.And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood.
You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.
Atheism is not exclusive to democrats. That's extremely ignorant.You really are clueless. You haven't a clue out there about the fact scientists are not all in on the Big Bang or old earth as well. They want to be so they can be included in the social events of the year. But, many see the problems that their models just aren't answering. When you read young earth scientist's literature, what they always say is that young earth better fits the science gathered from old earth scientists. They never say that Old earth interpretations are wrong and that they are stupid. But, that's what oyu hear from the old earth interpreters of science data. That's because you guys are all so insecure about your conclusions you have to shout down anyone that disagrees. Then, you have to make conclusions that all scientists agree with you which is a lie. When you are challenged, you then have to shout out vulgar verbiage at the top of your lungs to be heard or to try and drown out those you disagree with. Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
The Institute of Creation Research are religious liars who are desperate to hide their 6000-year-old theories under a lab coat of lies. Ignore them.There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.
"Let me introduce you to Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. It measures 1500 feet long, up to 120 feet deep, and 120 feet wide, winding through a hillside. A small-scale analogy to Grand Canyon it was observed to form in less than six days."How Long Does It Take for a Canyon to Form?
ICR has long had a deep interest in magnificent Grand Canyon. This awesome wonder of the natural world, we believe, bears eloquent testimony to the great flood of Noah's day. Visitors to Grand Canyon as well as eighth grade earth science students have been traditionally taught that the...www.icr.org
"Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago."
"Flowers may be convinced that her new results are reliable, but other experts are not. State University of New York geologist Richard Young told Science NOW that despite this new study, "there's a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon."5 And California Institute of Technology geologist Brian Wernicke said, "It's hard to look at a landscape and discern its erosional history."Age of Grand Canyon Remains a Mystery
How would a scientist estimate the time when a canyon formed? Various techniques and different interpretations of those techniques have yielded a wide range of estimated dates for the formation of Arizona's Grand Canyon. But results from a new technique are again challenging the canyon's...www.icr.org
Let's see some actual refutation.The Institute of Creation Research are religious liars who are desperate to hide their 6000-year-old theories under a lab coat of lies. Ignore them.
Not about this subject.You really are clueless.
You haven't a clue about what I have a clue about.You haven't a clue out there about the fact scientists are not all in on the Big Bang or old earth as well.
This says more about you than it does about any scientists . . . . . and frankly, it's embarrassing for you. Or it should be.They want to be so they can be included in the social events of the year.
Which now reveals that it is you who are clueless. But that's OK. I'll impart some clues to you before this post is through.But, many see the problems that their models just aren't answering. When you read young earth scientist's literature, what they always say is that young earth better fits the science gathered from old earth scientists. They never say that Old earth interpretations are wrong and that they are stupid. But, that's what oyu hear from the old earth interpreters of science data.
"YOU GUYS" ???That's because you guys are all so insecure about your conclusions you have to shout down anyone that disagrees.
??? Nonsense. Here on planet Earth, we can't get all of any demographic to agree with anything. But fortunately, our view of the truth of the world doesn't have to be unanimous. The overwhelming preponderance of earth and planetary scientists - well over 90% - all do agree with the facts presented every day by observable reality. We live on a very old earth.Then, you have to make conclusions that all scientists agree with you which is a lie.
Assumes facts not in evidence. But I'm not surprised. Religious people don't believe in evidence.When you are challenged, you then have to shout out vulgar verbiage at the top of your lungs to be heard or to try and drown out those you disagree with.
I can't speak to that political model, but I can certainly understand anybody's efforts to silence the spread of misinformation. It leads to wrongheaded conclusions, and they can be dangerous to the planet, and our life on it.Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
Nice. So perhaps COVID is still questionable? Real americans. Real scientists to an obvious non-scientist, real people agree with me. See my links.There are other large canyons that took a short period of time to form around the world as well. Real scientists never say science is solved. That's a political issue.
"Let me introduce you to Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. It measures 1500 feet long, up to 120 feet deep, and 120 feet wide, winding through a hillside. A small-scale analogy to Grand Canyon it was observed to form in less than six days."How Long Does It Take for a Canyon to Form?
ICR has long had a deep interest in magnificent Grand Canyon. This awesome wonder of the natural world, we believe, bears eloquent testimony to the great flood of Noah's day. Visitors to Grand Canyon as well as eighth grade earth science students have been traditionally taught that the...www.icr.org
"Many believe that this 277-mile long gorge had formed over millions of years, but another famous North American landmark shows that the Grand Canyon could have been created much faster and not long ago."
"Flowers may be convinced that her new results are reliable, but other experts are not. State University of New York geologist Richard Young told Science NOW that despite this new study, "there's a lot of evidence for a young Grand Canyon."5 And California Institute of Technology geologist Brian Wernicke said, "It's hard to look at a landscape and discern its erosional history."Age of Grand Canyon Remains a Mystery
How would a scientist estimate the time when a canyon formed? Various techniques and different interpretations of those techniques have yielded a wide range of estimated dates for the formation of Arizona's Grand Canyon. But results from a new technique are again challenging the canyon's...www.icr.org
You're certifiable.The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one. And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood. You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.
Wow. Sounds like you're saying that science is just another religion. Can you parcel out how a christian should relatively assess Islam, versus Judaism, versus every other male dominator god religion you know of, versus science?You really are clueless. You haven't a clue out there about the fact scientists are not all in on the Big Bang or old earth as well. They want to be so they can be included in the social events of the year. But, many see the problems that their models just aren't answering. When you read young earth scientist's literature, what they always say is that young earth better fits the science gathered from old earth scientists. They never say that Old earth interpretations are wrong and that they are stupid. But, that's what oyu hear from the old earth interpreters of science data. That's because you guys are all so insecure about your conclusions you have to shout down anyone that disagrees. Then, you have to make conclusions that all scientists agree with you which is a lie. When you are challenged, you then have to shout out vulgar verbiage at the top of your lungs to be heard or to try and drown out those you disagree with. Which is the liberal left Democrats mode of silencing their objectors.
LOL Wont even waste my time (beyond that.) LOLThe flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one. And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood. You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.
There is nothing to falsify because they have no evidence of their nonsense. They use half-truths and blatant lies.Let's see some actual refutation.
The hallmark of true science is the ability to test and attempt the falsify theories.
So falsify their claims.
Wiki.On January 7, 2007 the National Center for Science Education reported that Grand Canyon: A Different View, edited by Tom Vail and published by Master Books, the publishing arm of the Institute for Creation Research, and described as promoting "a young-earth creationist view of the geology of the Grand Canyon," was facing new scrutiny by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in December 2006. The Chief of the Park Service's Geologic Resources Division recommended its removal on grounds that it "does not use accurate, professional and scholarly knowledge; is not based on science but a specific religious doctrine; does not further the public's understanding of the Grand Canyon's existence; [and] does not further the mission of the National Park Service".[61] A report by the National Center for Science Education, written by Chemist Karen Bartelt was critical of the ICR representatives and displays in the "museum."
There is nothing to falsify because they have no evidence of their nonsense. They use half-truths and blatant lies.
Again, no science - just the opinion of people with skin in the game based on acceptance of a paradigm.Wiki.
Let's see some actual refutation.
The hallmark of true science is the ability to test and attempt the falsify theories.
So falsify their claims.
Why do you think it has to be a "closed system" and what do you even think that means?The problem they present to you is that the "proof" of an old earth has been falsified because the rock samples they use for dating are never from a closed system - which is true.
Uhh yes they can.Dating a rock to be millions/billions of years old is a ridiculous undertaking as they can never say how much Pb was present to begin with.
LOL you think every rock in that volcano sprang into existence on the day of the eruption!?Rocks from Mt. St. Helens have been dated to be thousands of years old. I watched it blow on TV, I can assure you that I am not thousands of years old
You haven't actually presented an observation that is inconsistent with the old earth.In short, they are presenting a narrative born out of their own biases as if it were scientific fact. That is malpractice of the highest order.
Think what you want about creationism, but it is the creationists who actually present the scientific facts in this regard.
Again, no science - just the opinion of people with skin in the game based on acceptance of a paradigm.
There is a lot of fraud and bias in "science" - always has been.
Galileo was imprisoned for daring to go against orthodoxy. Old earth and evolution are today's orthodoxy - despite a lack of actual scientific proof.
Anyone who dares to challenge the orthodoxy is labeled a heretic and cast out.
It is the same with "global warming/climate change". Observations do not match the theory - so of course the priests don't accept the facts; rather, they to lie to the public to protect the fraud upon which their careers are dependent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?